Republicans took a heavy hit on Tuesday, but the results may leave the party’s remaining lawmakers more united on the issue that helped Donald Trump return to office: mass deportation.
Even after the losses, voters gave Republicans a slight advantage over Democrats on immigration. In an NBC exit poll, 44% said the GOP would handle the issue better, compared with 41% who chose Democrats. That does not mean every voter supports mass deportation. It does, however, challenge the argument that immigration enforcement had become a political liability.
For much of the past two years, I argued with reporters, activists, lawmakers, and their staff about what I saw as a false consensus against enforcement. Those most eager to abandon it often stood to gain from cheap, unauthorized labor. I said so, and it did not exactly win me invitations. That was fine.
Voters who backed Trump expected him to pursue the largest deportation effort in U.S. history. Instead, the administration went to war with Iran. Vice President JD Vance has acknowledged that the conflict cost Republicans the midterms.
Supporters of the Iran campaign argued that near-term economic hardship was justified by the prospect of long-term strategic benefits. Opponents of workplace immigration enforcement make a similar argument about the economy, treating possible price increases as a reason to set aside the law. Meat might cost more, deliveries could take longer, and people might have to mow their own lawns. Americans were apparently expected to accept the burdens of a war abroad but not modest inconveniences at home.
That trade-off is still ours to make.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not need a new appropriation from the incoming Democratic-led Congress. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act set aside about $75 billion for ICE enforcement and detention, on top of the agency’s regular funding. The money is available through September 2029. What is missing is a serious effort to enforce immigration law at workplaces, where employers who benefit from unauthorized labor have largely avoided scrutiny.
Deportation numbers also remain short of what the administration promised. The Migration Policy Institute estimated that, through July 2026, formal removals under Trump averaged roughly 380,000 annually. That is below the Obama-era high of more than 432,000 a year. Meanwhile, the unauthorized immigrant population rose from about 11 million during the Obama years to an estimated 15.8 million by mid-2024. Against that backdrop, the current pace does not look like an operation carried out at the promised scale.
The Oversight Project has sued the Department of Homeland Security seeking detailed deportation records. The government should publish the figures so the public can assess the results.
Vance appears to understand the importance of the issue. In a post-election assessment on Wednesday, he said he was open to changing enforcement priorities, including focusing more on businesses that hire unauthorized workers. He also warned that people advocating amnesty were misleading the public.
That comment points to a central question: will the administration confront employers who want a secure border but also want to keep their unauthorized workforce? Vance has now put workplace enforcement into the public debate.
A change in White House leadership could matter, too. Trump announced Friday that Stephen Miller would replace Susie Wiles as chief of staff, starting Monday. Miller has been one of the most influential figures in shifting the political debate on immigration. He is about to take one of the most powerful staff roles in the administration. If the government cannot move from promises to large-scale deportations now, when will it?
The midterms also removed several lawmakers whom immigration enforcement advocates considered weak on the issue. The Immigration Accountability Project’s post-election count found that 18 defeated lawmakers were in its lowest-ranked quarter, while only two were in its highest. It also identified eight defeated co-sponsors of Rep. María Salazar’s “Dignity Act.” Those figures do not explain why each candidate lost, but they do suggest the next Congress may look different.
Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas offers one example of the pressures involved. After ICE increased activity in southwest Kansas’s meatpacking region in September, Marshall criticized agents for not coordinating with local law enforcement and for causing major disruption to communities and businesses. He later lost to Democrat Adam Hamilton by nearly five points, becoming the first Kansas Republican to lose a Senate race since 1932. Many factors contributed to his defeat, but the episode shows the political pushback that can follow when enforcement reaches employers reliant on unauthorized labor.
Republicans were punished over the Iran war, the cost of living, and promises they did not fulfill. The answer is not to abandon an issue on which voters still trusted Republicans more than Democrats. It is to follow through on a commitment that helped bring the party’s coalition together.
Trump has the funding. His vice president is talking about workplace enforcement, and Stephen Miller is about to lead the White House staff. Special interests have less influence than they did a week ago, and many Republicans who backed amnesty lost their seats. There are still plenty of excuses available, but fewer reasons to accept them.
Now the administration needs to do the job.
